March 15, 2006
-
The Muhammad caricature controversy drew a thoughtful editorial from Christianity Today (03/14/06) which I happen to agree with. Centuries earlier, Byzantine Christians were caught up in bloody sectarian violence over depiction of saints and prophets that the years between 762 and 775 were known as the “decade of blood.” Thousands then were exiled, tortured, or killed. Looking back at the mid-1500s, veneration of relics and the display of “graven images” again resulted in mayhem and destruction, so the editorial reminded readers.
Back then it wasn’t the freedom of expression that was at issue. So what’s the correct response? When does freedom become offense?
At the height of the caricature controversy, the European Evangelical Alliance issued a statement, saying, "We long for a society in which people think hard before expressing ideas that are bound to cause deep offense."
The advice echoes Paul's instruction to the Corinthians: "Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved." Press freedom may be a universal human right, but Paul reminds us that while exercising a right might be "lawful," it is not always "helpful." Restraint demonstrates charity and hospitality—not appeasement.
(Read the rest here)
Today, the ongoing tit-for-tat destruction and killing that’s taking place in Nigeria by vengeful Christians, tells us that we can’t be pointing to the speck in another’s eye when a plank is in our own. Yet at the same time I am not of the opinion that the principle of charity is any less relevant. In fact, if we want to survive, civilisation as we know it needs to practise it more than ever.
Recent Comments